Drone Wolf

sorasak-222550-unsplash.jpg

As I write this, Gatwick airport is on shutdown. The reason? Somebody flew a drone or drones onto the airfield. Naturally, to ensure safety, all flights were grounded. The disruption has been significant. With the approach of the Christmas holidays, hundreds of thousands of people had their travel plans in disarray. The ripple effect went out across the UK, Europe and around the world as planes diverted.

All the indicators suggest that this incident is not terrorist related. It appears to be a prank or part of a protest. Either way, it has potentially deadly consequences. In 2016 British Airways reported one of its planes had hit a drone as it came into land at London's Heathrow airport. Although not confirmed, the incident, which involved an A320 en route from Geneva with 137 person a board, is thought to have been the first of its kind in Britain.

So how dangerous is a drone to an aircraft? Well in 2009, a flock of birds took out both engines on an Airbus A320 climbing out of LaGuardia Airport, New York. Only the deft flying by Captain Chesley Sullenberger and his co-pilot saved 155 people aboard. A plane engine ingesting a drone may suffer the same fate. 

Early reports suggest the drones used at Gatwick are industrial models. These are larger and very expensive, which may indicate a systematic attempt to close the airport. The financial costs of this stunt are in the millions of pounds. Moreover, passengers may not be eligible for compensation — a double whammy for families seeking a holiday break.  

The UK Airprox Board, which monitors near misses, recorded 92 between aircraft and drones in 2017. That was more than three times the number in 2015. Drones are growing in their popularity, ease of use and range. 

You’ve got to ask how long before someone uses a drone for a terrorist attack on an airport? A plane on the ground would be relatively easy to hit. Directly fly the drone with an attached explosive component into an engine. The result could be disastrous.

The time has come for governments to get tough before lives are lost. The current legislative approach in the UK and elsewhere is reactive at best. None of that is going to prevent an attack by a determined operator. I envisage the solution lies in a layered approach. The elements of this are:

  •  Deterrent

  •  Enforcement

  •  Reaction

Accordingly, the law needs to be tightened, and the right equipment needs to be in place and staff trained to use it.

Let's deal with the law first. There exists an option that would go a long way to forestalling the use of a drone as a weapon. The technology already exists and is applied in China. To activate a new drone in the PRC, you must register the device through a sim card. This procedure ensures the user’s identification. Next, the software creates geo-fences preventing activation or flying in designated restricted zones and at certain times. The system works. A friend on a visit to Shenzhen couldn’t even switch on his drone. He later learnt a VIP was in the vicinity and the system was shut down.

Flying near airports or other sensitive locations such as nuclear power stations is impossible. That's unless you hack the software. I’m sure this is possible, although it’s another layer of security that needs defeating to weaponise a drone.

Next up is equipment. Signal blocking is possible, although how this operates in an airport environment needs to be examined. The UK has a problem with drugs smuggled into jails by drones. Tests have shown that signal blocking can disrupt this activity. 

An interception by another drone, a net-gun or laser have all proven possible. In Holland, eagles are taught to bring down drones. With staff trained to respond, a rapid intervention should be possible; thereby stopping an attack and minimising flight disruptions. 

It’s only a matter of time before terrorists deploy a drone in an attack against civil aviation. The drone could be the means of direct attack, or it could act in a support role. By that, I mean, transporting weapons or explosive airside to defeat security. 

Either way, governments need to step up and take action. Geo-fencing and registration of drones would be the first step. No doubt the human rights lobby may raise concerns and media outlets could see their use of drones curtailed. In my opinion, it’s a small price to pay to avoid hundreds dead. 

Steve Wordsworth